|
Raj
Irudaya, S.J. The beginning of our Third Millennium has been blemished by wars and violence in Afghanistan, Israel and India. In response to the ruthless attack of terrorists in New York and Washington DC, the United States of America with the help of other nations launched a war on Afghanistan under the guise of controlling and exterminating terrorism. Israel took courage from the ‘exemplary model’ of USA to defiantly and mercilessly continue a war in the West Bank on the plea of eradicating terrorism from its land. War-clouds are still hovering over the border between Pakistan and India. The worst religious clashes and massacres of the last decade occurred recently in Gujarat and have again blackened the Indian image of religious tolerance and pluralism. The Pentagon is contemplating an attack on Iraq in a year or two with a deployment of 250,000 troops. This third millennium has been born in blood! Wars have never brought lasting peace and harmony. They only bring devastation and keep alive hostility and hatred among inimical parties. Civilians and innocent people are often the most affected in such catastrophes. The lives and homes of innocent people are indiscriminately destroyed without sparing even children, women, old and sick people. The ravage heaped upon Jenin in the West Bank is not wholly known to the world. The thousands of victims and properties recklessly ruined in the recent communal violence in Gujarat have not faded from our minds. History proves that wars do not bring permanent humanitarian and equitable solutions to problems and crises. Military action can at best bring about some temporary relief. But the wounds caused by death of dear ones and destruction of property fester in the people in the form of hatred. Hostility and resentment constantly ignite new wars and violence. It is said that the Six Days War in Israel left a blazing residue of enmity, which continues to break out in bomb explosions and suicide killings. The bloody clashes between Hindus and Muslims which took place at the time of the partition of India and Pakistan continue to smoulder in the recent religious violence in Gujarat and elsewhere. Powerful countries, militant groups and the dominant castes easily take recourse to violence and wars as the solution to political problems. The Biblical prophets may tell us one thing or two relevant to our context. How did they look at wars in their land? Did they encourage or condemn wars? Did they proclaim a message palatable to their kings? What were their alternatives to wars? In this reflection on militant violence we shall restrict ourselves to prophet Jeremiah. We shall take up a few of his passages which deal with the threat of war by the Babylonians against Judah during the rule of king Zedekiah. Jeremiah against War The oracles from the time of Zedekiah are found in Jeremiah 21:1-24:10. They are considered as a separate unit. Chapter 21 begins a new theme. The preceeding pericope, 17:10-20:18 has a different theme. The new section is signalled by the opening words, "The words which came to Jeremiah from the Lord". A similar beginning is found in 7:1; 11:1; 18:1; 30:1; 34:1; 35:1. We therefore take this pericope Jer 21:1-24:10 as the basis of our study and shall relate it to passages from Jeremiah which deal with this theme. Context of War in Judah The public ministry of Jeremiah is said to have been during the final years of the seventh century BCE (roughly around 610-600) and in the first two decades of the sixth century. It was the period when the Babylonian Empire was emerging as a colossal superpower in the Ancient Near East: "The king of Babylon had taken over all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Wadi of Egypt to the River Euphrates" (2 Kings 24:7). It was indeed a great threat to Judah. Jerusalem was besieged by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar in 598-597 BCE. Jehoiakim, king of Judah who reigned in Jerusalem for eleven years (2 Kings 23:36) died during the Babylonian besiege of Jerusalem. Jehoiachin, the successor of Jehoiakim who reigned for just three months, was taken by King Nebuchadnezzar as a captive to Babylon (2 Kings 24:10-12). In his place Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s uncle was made the ruler of Judah (24:17). The rule of Zedekiah, which lasted for eleven years was also not pleasing to the Lord. "He did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, just as Jehoiakim had done" (24:19). During the rule of Zedekiah, there were many desperate attempts on the part of Judah to rebel against the Babylonian over-lordship. The final revolt of Zedekiah during the last two years of his reign met with the decisive and destructive invasion of Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 25:1-7; 52:1-11). Seeking God in the Crisis Invaded by the Babylonians Jerusalem was facing a threat of destruction. All the attempts of Zedekiah to rebel against the Babylonian King had been thwarted. His revolt had boomeranged and endangered the very existence of the kingdom of Judah itself. Zedekiah was pushed to a corner and as a last resort made an attempt to know the mind and will of Yahweh in that perilous and deadly situation. Earlier he had ignored the words of the Lord coming through Jeremiah. "But neither he (Zedekiah) nor his servants nor the people of the land listened to the words of the Lord that he spoke through the prophet Jeremiah" (Jer 37:2). In the Old Testament times it was normal for kings to approach prophets for consultation and guidance when they intended to make a war or battle (1 Kings 20:13-15; 2 Kings 3; 6:24-7:20; 18:13-19:37; 2 Chr 18:3-27). But Zedekiah now approached the Lord only because his crooked and diplomatic designs had failed him. He sent Pashhur, son of Malchiah, and the priest Zephaniah, son of Maaseiah, to Jeremiah for counsel and guidance: "Please inquire of the Lord on our behalf, for King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon is making war against us; perhaps the Lord will perform a wonderful deed for us, as he has often done, and will make him withdraw from us" (Jer 21:2). "Inquire of the Lord" is not merely an attempt to know whether Yahweh is reliable and faithful in this crisis. In prophetic terms, it means also seeking the Lord and urging a fresh commitment of loyalty to Yahweh (Am 5:4.6; Is 55:6). Zedekiah hoped that Yahweh would drive out the Babylonian King by ‘a wonderful deed’. Yahweh’s wonderful deeds inevitably evoke the memory of the saving acts performed by him for the Israelites during their Exodus and conquest of the land of Canaan and during the invasion of Jerusalem by Sennacherib (2 Kings 19; Is 37). Zedekiah wanted to know whether such a wonderful deed of Yahweh would be repeated in order to save Judah from the impending danger of death and destruction by King Nebuchadnezaar. Yahweh's Answer to War The response of Yahweh to the inquiry of Zedekiah was decisive and resolute (Jer 21:3-10). The answer was comprised of a counsel to and judgement on Judah. The counsel was an appeal of Yahweh to Judah pleading for non-resistance and surrender to the powerful Babylonians (21: 8-9). The judgement proclaimed in unequivocal terms the devastation which would befall Judah if it failed to surrender (21:4-7 = 33:4-5; 34:2-3; 38:21-23). Zedekiah, his officers and priests thought of meeting the threatening war of the Babylonians only with resistance, retaliation and counter-attack. The counsel of the Lord was non-resistance and surrender. During the reign of Zedekiah several attempts had been made to revolt against the over-lordship of the Babylonians (Jer 52:3; 2 Kings 24:20; 2 Chr 36:11-14). Zedekiah also counted on the support and help of Egypt (Ezek 17:15) to rebel against the Babylonians. He was also trying to conspire with the band of the kings of Edom, Moab, Tyre, Sidon and Ammon for a united resistance and attack on the invaders (Jer 27:3). Thus Zedekiah's policy had been rebellion against the King of Babylon and a refusal to hearken to the words of the Lord coming through Jeremiah. The very beginning of the reply of Yahweh to the inquiry of Zedekiah points out to the ongoing defiant rebellion and unyielding fight in which Zedekiah was engaging against the King of Babylon: "I am going to turn back the weapons of war that are in your hands and with which you are fighting against the king of Babylon and against the Chaldeans who are besieging you outside the walls…" (Jer 21:4). This is where the decisive and resolute judgement of destruction on Judah comes: "I myself will fight against you with outstretched hand and mighty arm, in anger, in fury and in great wrath" (Jer 21:5). These words of Yahweh are revelatory of his own involvement in the execution of the judgement against Judah and the very emphatic use of the first personal pronoun ani (I myself) brings out this intent powerfully. The rage of Yahweh is graphically brought out in three synonyms – anger, fury, wrath – showing how displeased God was with Zedekiah who did not listen to his words but went on persistently doing what was evil in God’s sight. Moreover, the expression "with outstretched hand and mighty arm" which has been frequently used in the holy wars (Deut 26:8; Ps 136:12) Yahweh fought for Israel, is also employed here in this context. This particular language of the Exodus is now reversed. Jeremiah has overturned the faith tradition of Judah and he has used it against Judah itself. Yahweh was not going to fight for Judah as he did earlier, but would fight against Judah because Judah itself had become evil. This shows that why Yahweh’s judgement on Judah is decisive and definite. Surrender and Non-resistance – a Paradoxical Response? The answer of Yahweh to the impending crisis of Judah came in the form of a repeated appeal for non-resistance and surrender to the Babylonians. This answer is intriguing and enigmatic and one is tempted to ask: How can Yahweh who is pictured in the Old Testament as the One fighting against the enemies of Israelites during the exodus, conquest of Canaan, invasion of Sennacherib and the like, now suggest non-resistance and surrender to their enemies?" Do surrender and non-resistance mean submission to evil and destructive power? Does surrender suggest slavery and loss of independence and freedom for Judah? Was Zedekiah wrong in fighting a war to save his kingdom from the onslaughts and devastations of the Babylonians? What is the significance of this unusual answer? A Timely Strategy Surrender and non-resistance was the strategy advocated by Yahweh to Judah for its very survival when faced with the menace of a deadly war and destruction by the Babylonians. The Babylonian empire had then emerged as a massive and formidable power in the Near East (2 Kings 24:7). The Babylonians were sweeping over all the small kingdoms and even the great Egyptian kingdom. A small kingdom like Judah could not possibly withstand the mighty army of the Babylonians. If Judah went to war with the Babylonians, it would end in a despicable defeat, horrible carnage and enormous destruction of lives and places. Surrender would at least guarantee survival and would avoid bloodshed, death and destruction. This was the strategy and counsel of Yahweh. To Avoid Bloodshed, Death and Destruction Any war or communal violence invariably leaves behind it a trail of devastation and desolation. The shattered buildings in Afghanistan, the devastated homes in Jenin, the burnt houses in Gujarat are today’s ‘proud monuments’ of war and violence. Moreover, the traumatized lives, the paralysed economy, the outbreak of famine, pestilence, diseases accompanied by untold miseries, aggravate the situation of the people. Innocent civilians, the poor, women, children, old and sick people, are most affected in such violence. Yahweh whose heart always leaps at the sight of suffering, wanted Judah to escape such miseries which would be heaped on the people if it went to war against the Babylonians. The direction of Yahweh to surrender to the Babylonians would avoid such disasters: "See, I am setting before you the way of life and the way of death. Those who stay in this city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence; but those who go out and surrender to the Chaldeans who are besieging you shall live and shall have their lives as a prize of war" (Jer 21:8-9). ‘The way of life’ for Judah would come through their surrender. Refusing to surrender was ‘the way of death’. ‘Those who stay in the city’ (Jer 21:9) refers to those people inside the city of Jerusalem who continued to hold out against the Babylonians in rebellion and resistance through war, and thus invited death and devastation. People’s Wellbeing or Power of the King? Yahweh wants life, not death, is more anxious about the survival of his people than the independence and freedom of the State. Yahweh prefers the people’s wellbeing to the king’s stay in power. Zedekiah and his royal house were adamant in wanting to fight the war against the Babylonians in order to maintain and enjoy their power. This was at the cost of people’s lives and the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. "Included in the reference to ‘this city’ are the social ideology and policy of the throne and temple, and the power arrangements that sustain that ideology and policy…. The judgement is against the arrogant temple and the self-serving monarchy". Zedekiah and the royal house were obsessed with power and thought of war as the only option in their situation. The concern and approach of Yahweh focuses on the wellbeing and survival of all the people in time of war crisis. What concerned Yahweh most was justice, not the power of the State or the rulers. Justice in this situation was the survival and life of the people. Yahweh did not want to sacrifice the lives of the people at the altar of the power of the king or of the independence of the State. In advocating surrender and non-resistance Yahweh wanted Zedekiah to put the people’s wellbeing before his own stay in power. We can see such power politics operative even today. When Gujarat is burning, the Chief Minister tries to stay in power and manoeuvres things in his favour and for the advantage of his Government. The Central Government refuses to be shaken by the crisis and manipulates that he stays in power. In spite of these clearly ambiguous and high-handed dealings, most of the coalition parties of the National Democratic Alliance at the Centre make a loud hue and cry about the situation, but refuse to take any radical action because they all wish to cling on to power. The result is unabated killing and destruction for many days, innocent people being the victims of greed for power. Obviously, the people’s wellbeing is never kept in focus. The strategy was anti-people, and so anti-God. The Will of Yahweh and the Babylonian Power God’s ways are incomparably different and unique. Yahweh uses the Babylonian power as a way to admonish, chastise and purify Judah. Hence surrender to the Babylonian power was announced as submission to the way of Yahweh. Resistance to the Babylon meant resistance to Yahweh’s will. Jeremiah’s advice to surrender is not an eulogy or glorification of the Babylonians but the revelation of the will of Yahweh in a historical event. It is I who by my great power and my outstretched arm have made the earth, with the people and animals that are on the earth, and I give it to whomever I please. Now I have given all these lands into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, my servant, and I have given him even the wild animals of the field to serve him. All the nations shall serve him and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes… (Jer 27:5-7). The unquestionable sovereignty and the unparalleled power of Yahweh are shown in these words. Yahweh is the author and source of everything that is and everyone who lives. Everything and everyone is from Yahweh. All belong to Yahweh and are accountable to Yahweh. 'Animals' here refer to every living creature other than human beings. All creation and all power are under the authority of Yahweh. So the power of the Babylonians is also under Yahweh's sovereignty. The king of Babylon might claim authority over nations by right of conquest, but Yahweh claims the right to rule as creator. The Creator is greater than a conqueror. The Creator can be a conqueror, but a conqueror cannot make himself a creator. Yahweh asked Judah to surrender because the massive Babylonian power was itself under his own authority. What matters here is not Babylonian power but the will of Yahweh. Surrendering to the Babylonians meant submitting to the will of Yahweh. Yahweh has the power and authority over creation. In his will and plan Yahweh can dispose of any part of it to anyone he likes for any purpose of his. In this large theological vision of Jeremiah, Yahweh’s use of the Babylonian power can be understood as an agent of the Lord’s action in that particular context. Later on King Cyrus of Persia would be also presented as one chosen to fulfil the purpose of Yahweh (2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:3-6; Is 45:1-13; 48:28). King Nebuchadnezzar is presented as Yahweh’s servant (27:6). How can this title ‘my servant’, given to Moses, David and the servant Isaiah, be properly understood in the case of Nebuchadnezzar? Several attempts have been made to understand this servant-title in this context. A servant has to carry out his master’s plans and directions. Nebuchadnazzar is viewed as the Lord’s servant because he is regarded as an instrument to fulfill the divine purpose. Another explanation is to see a servant as a vassal in the diplomatic meaning. A vassal is expected to provide an army for the use of his overlord. This is the commission which King Nebuchadnezzar is asked to carry out (Jer 25:8-11). A servant and a vassal are under the control of his master and overlord. So ahweh can dispose of Nabuchadnezzar when he does not continue to act as his servant and vassal (Jer 27:7; 29:10). The overthrow of the Babylonian power is vividly foretold in Jeremiah 50 and 51. Therefore the Babylonian power is the choice of Yahweh to fulfill his purpose at this juncture of history. Explaining the role of the King of Babylon in God’s plan, Walter Brueggemann comments thus on "until the time of his own land comes…" (27:7b): This "until" asserts the prophetic expectation that Babylonian power is not absolute but provisional. The exile to Babylon is not for perpetuity, even though it is for a long time…. This powerful "until" breaks the connection between the destiny of Babylon and the will of Yahweh which the prophet has so determinedly established. In the end, empire and Yahweh are not coterminous. As in v.7, this "until" announces that the Babylonian Empire is an episode in God’s history of sovereignty — an important episode, but only an episode… What is ultimately serious is God’s final resolve to restore Judah to its land. Since King Nebuchadnezzar is seen as Yahweh’s choice to fulfil his divine purpose and plan, Jeremiah invited Zedekiah and the people of Judah to surrender to him. In a symbolic action at the command of Yahweh, Jeremiah made known this message not only to Zedekiah and the house of Judah but also to all other small kingdoms like Edom, Ammon, Moab, Tyre and Sidon who were also confronted by the Babylonian power. As a symbol of Judah’s surrender to the abylonians, Jeremiah wore a yoke of straps and bars around his neck (27:1-7). The yoke of the Babylonians was seen as the yoke of Yahweh himself and it had to be accepted by Judah and others if they wanted to be saved from that deadly crisis of war. "But any nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him, I will leave on its own land, says the Lord, to till it and live there" (27:11). Zedekiah and the people of Judah were warned by the Lord not to listen to those who gave advice against this yoke: "You, therefore, must not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your dreamers, your soothsayers, or your sorcerers, who are saying to you, 'You shall not serve the king of Babylon'. For they are prophesying a lie to you, with the result that you will be removed far from your land…" (27:9-10). Hananiah, a false prophet who, with the intention of pleasing and currying favour with king Zedekiah, misinterpreted the duration of the Babylonian exile, was punished with death (Jer 28). "In the perceptual field of Jeremiah, the theological question of Yahweh’s permission and the political question of imperial capacity and durability are the same question. Jeremiah insists that the rule of Yahweh and Judah’s response to that rule are the only pertinent issues". Hence Jeremiah saw the Babylonian power as the way and will of Yahweh. Judah was invited to discover and follow the will of Yahweh coming through the istorical event of the Babylonian supremacy and rule. Against War but for Justice Three responses of Yahweh have been recorded in Jeremiah 21 to the inquiry of Zedekiah about the war of Nebuchadnezzar. The address to Zedekiah (3-7) talks about the fatal judgement of Yahweh on the king and Judah. The address to the people of Judah (8-10) speaks about the need of non-resistance and surrender to the Babylonian power as a hope of survival. The third response directed to the house of the king of Judah (11-14) includes the call of Yahweh to do justice and the admonition of destruction if the people failed to listen to the Lord. The placement of the third response recorded in chapter 21 in the context of Zedekiah’s inquiry, is much disputed. The section (vv.11-14) is considered as a free-standing oracle and it does not seem to have any specific allusion to the inquiry found in vv.1-2. Moreover the style of this section is in poetry whereas vv.1-10 are rendered in prose. V.11 signals the beginning of a new oracle and most scholars suggest that it could be seen as part of a large unit of oracles concerning the royal house (22:11-23:8). It is addressed to "the house of the king of Judah" in general and not to any particular king. "House of David" in v.12 is rather formal and impersonal. Only from its juxtaposition with vv.1-10, it has a tendency of being associated with the king Zedekiah. Furthermore, no absolute and conclusive judgement is intended here in vv.11-14 as one finds it in vv.1-10. Therefore it is suggested that vv.11-14 are intentionally placed in chapter 21 though they might not have been originally articulated in the context of the inquiry of Zedekiah. A conventional demand about the covenantal fidelity of the rulers of Judah is expressed in vv.11-14. "It is the voice of the old covenant urging a covenantal, obedient shaping of royal power and policy". This covenantal demand is quite vibrant throughout the section 21:11-23:8. A king who is to rule his people in the name of Yahweh is to administer justice and deliver those who are oppressed. Maintaining justice was an integral part of maintaining the covenant. Judah’s rulers had ignored such kingly duties and had become exploiters and oppressors of their own people. Jeremiah graphically describes the extravagant opulence, rampant exploitation and gross injustice of king Jehoiakim (22:10-17). Therefore the wrath of Yahweh would judge such kings for their unfaithfulness and infidelity to the covenantal demands. But the kings would escape the wrath of God if they fulfilled their royal duties of rendering justice. In this context comes the clarion call of God to the house of the king of David (21:12): "Execute justice in the morning, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed…". It has been already observed here that vv.11-14 are intentionally placed in chapter 21 and probably not originally articulated for the context of the inquiry of Zedekiah. But their placement here is theologically significant. The intention of this placement comes out powerfully when we understand this message in the context of chapter 21:1-10. It is not merely avoidance of war, non-resistance and surrender to the Babylonian power which will save Judah but doing justice and delivering the oppressed. This will restore the monarchy. This is a positive command to the house of the king of Judah to fulfil the royal duties. Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan and the widow or shed innocent blood in this place. For if you will indeed obey this word, then through the gates of this house shall enter kings who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they, and their servants, and their people (22:3-4). This reminder to the kings of Judah to be faithful to the covenant is well placed here. Their disloyalty to the covenantal principles had resulted in the rampant injustice and widespread oppression. Thus Judah drastically failed to live like a covenantal community and incurred punishment and judgement of the Lord, which would befall them in the form of the Babylonian invasion and destruction. The escape from such an imminent debacle and devastation would be made possible if Judah decided to act with justice and righteousness and to become again the covenantal community of the Lord. Yahweh wanted Judah to avoid war not merely by their non-resistance and surrender to the Babylonian power, but also by the very practice and living of justice, which is most characteristic of the covenantal community. Never a War but Ever for Peace Jeremiah has presented the mind and will of Yahweh as totally against the war option as a solution to the national crisis Judah found itself in. Isaiah, an eighth century prophet had also communicated the same mind of Yahweh (Is 7:1-9:6; 2 Kings 15:29-16:20). Yahweh advised king Ahaz through Isaiah not to join king Rezin of Aram and king Pekah of Israel in their rebellious war against the Assyrians. In the case of the Syro-Ephramite warr Yahweh counselled Ahaz not to fight against king Rezin and king Pekah by seeking the allegiance of king Tiglath-pileser of Assyria. In both events king Ahaz was asked by Isaiah to trust totally in Yahweh and avoid war. The Lord who had performed so many wonders for the Israelites was also ready to reassure them with the hope of saving them (Is 9:1-6) and to deliver them, provided they followed his advice of not going to war. In a war crisis of Judah, the response and guidance of Yahweh has been uniquely different. Through prophets like Jeremiah and Isaiah, Yahweh refuses to advocate retaliation for military aggression, war for war. The Lord offers a strategy of avoiding war and thus escaping bloodshed, death and destruction of his people and Jerusalem at the hands of the Babylonians. The avoidance of war involves non-resistance and submission to the Babylonian power, as a small country like Judah could not withstand the mighty and devastating power of the Babylonians. If Judah defied the Babylonians and made war with them, it would be only death and destruction to her. Jeremiah shows it clearly that the will and purpose of Yahweh must be discovered and followed within the historical event of the growth of Babylonian power. Resisting it at this historical juncture meant resisting the will and plan of Yahweh himself. Zedekiah and his royal retinue expected the Lord to perform ‘a wonderful deed’ (21:2) for them. They wanted the Lord to fight on their behalf against their enemies, as in the past, and subdue and drive away the Babylonians from the land of Judah. But Jeremiah made it clear that this time the wonderful deed of Yahweh would be experienced in a different way. He advised them to be open and to heed the different way of the Lord. The mighty power of Yahweh would be realised in the non-resistance and submission of Judah to the power of the Babylonians and thus Judah would escape death and destruction and be assured of survival. To Yahweh what was important in the war crisis was not the total independence of Judah, nor the continuation of the Judean monarchy. Yahweh was concerned about the survival and wellbeing of his people and wanted to prevent them from being massacred and their city from being destroyed. So he gave the paradoxical but life-upholding direction to avoid war by submitting to the Babylonians. Unfortunately Zedekiah and his royal house did not heed the advice of Yahweh and continued their resistance to the Babylonian power. And so came about the downfall of Zedekiah and the Judean kingdom. The Babylonians burnt the city of Jerusalem and slaughtered the sons of Zedekiah. The eyes of Zedekiah were put out and he was taken as a prisoner to Babylon along with many people (2 Kings 25). The life-protecting words of the Lord are quite relevant in the context of our millennium, which has begun with wars and violence. Violence is no solution in times of crises. Powerful nations, militant groups and high caste people are easily tempted to this way when they want to perpetuate their hegemony and power, as was the case with king Zedekiah and his royal house. War cannot be the way. The Lord showed Judah a different and appropriate path for a time of crisis. Just, equitable and life-saving ways ought to be sought and found. It is easy to rush with military tanks and sophisticated weapons to meet a warring party. It is difficult and painstaking to meet the other honestly at negotiating tables. However arduous, slow and challenging, making peace among the inimical parties is always life-saving for every one. In seeking such ways out, it is not the power of the rulers which is to be kept in focus, but the very wellbeing of all people. One must seek creative and life-upholding ways like dialogue, discussion, mediation, to face crises and problems, whether local or national or international. The recent crisis of the Nativity Church in Bethlehem which was solved peacefully not by guns but by dialogue and mediation is a good example. The military aggression of Israel on the West Bank has not yet resulted in peace but has only continued to provoke more bomb explosions, suicide-killings and militant violence. Can peace be produced by the edge of a sword or by the nozzle of a gun? In his prophetic call against wars, Jeremiah does not recommend merely avoidance of wars but also the eradication of the causes of wars. Wars and violence are also provoked by injustice, exploitation and discrimination. It is not only those who wish to maintain an unjust hegemony and power who resort to wars and violence, but also those who are unjustly discriminated against and exploited feel forced to resort to such strategies. Therefore in our scenario of exploitation and discrimination doing justice is an indispensable and moral condition to maintain peace and harmony in the world. Only justice which can bring lasting peace.
1 International Herald Tribune, 29, April, 2002, p.1 2 Cf. W.L. Holladay, The Architecture of Jeremiah 1–20. London: Associated University Presses, 1976; K.M. O’Connor, The Confessions of Jeremiah: Their Interpretation and Role in Chapters 1–25. SBLDS 94. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. 3 Wars have been fought in Biblical history and Yahweh has been seen as a warrior in the Hebrew Bible. As the scope of this article is limited, we will not deal with the theologies of holy wars. For a discussion on this, cf. John A. Wood, Perspectives on War in the Bible, Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998; Gerard von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991; Millard C. Lind, Yahweh is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel, Kitchener, 1980; Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993; L. Christensen Duane, The Transformatiion of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy, Missoula: Scholars, 1975; Rudolph Smend, Yahweh War and Tribal Confederation: Reflections upon Israel’s Earliest History, Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. 4 Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998, p. 189. 5 Peter C. Cragie, Page H. Kelley, Joel F. Drinkard, Jr, Word Biblical Commentary: Jeremiah 1-25, Dallas: Word Books, 1991, p. 298. 6 Brueggeman, op.cit., p. 190. 7 Ibid., p. 191. 8 Cf. ibid., p. 242. The Jeremiah tradition refers to "the animals" when characterizing the way in which the creator God has turned creation over to the power of Babylon. 9 Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smotheres, Word Biblical Commentary: Jeremiah 26-52, Dallas: Word Books, 1995, pp. 49-50. 10 T. Overholt, "King Nebuchadnezzar in the Jeremiah Tradition". CBQ 30 (1968) 45-46. 11 Z. Zevit, "The Use of db, [, (eved) as a Diplomatic Term in Jeremiah". JBL 88 (1969) 74–77. 12 Brueggemann, op.cit., p. 249. 13 Ibid., p. 241. 14 Ibid., p. 191. 15 Cragie, Kelley and Drinkard, op.cit. pp. 290-4. 16 Brueggemann, op.cit., p.192. 17 Cragie, Kelley and Drinkard, op.cit. p. 292. 18 R.E. Clements, Jeremiah: Interpretation, Atalanta: John Knox Press, 1988, pp. 128-9. 19 "In the morning" is rendered in Hebrew by the word rqbl (lbkr). This literally means "to the morning". But it can be also understood as "each day, each morning" or even "continually." It was expected that executing justice was part of the daily royal duties of a king in Judah. Cf. Cragie, Kelley & Drinkard, ibid.
|